202 N.W. 97 | Iowa | 1925
Briefly stated, the defendant bought 23 shares of stock in the Linograph Investment Company, and gave his note for $4,600, dated February 12, 1920, in payment therefor. It is on this note that the suit is based. This note was made payable to the Linograph Investment Company, of Davenport. It was, through indorsement, passed to the plaintiff, which bought the note. The jury, by its verdict, found that it was procured by fraud and false representations, and that the plaintiff had not established itself to be an innocent purchaser.
The errors assigned have mostly to do with the instructions; and no further statement of the facts will be made, except as the same may be necessary to the consideration of the objection to the instructions.
There are a number of alleged false statements set out in the plaintiff's petition, on which it predicates its action. Some of them are statements of facts; others are mere matters of *547
1. TRIAL: opinion. The court failed to cull out the instruc- statements that were properly a basis for an tions: action of this kind, and nowhere in his submission instructions distinguishes between those which of can properly be submitted as a basis for such an actionable action from those which are not properly and submitted, but gave a general instruction that non- mere matters of opinion could not be the basis actionable of such an action. We have repeatedly condemned representa- this practice, and have said that it is the duty tions. of the trial court to cull from the pleadings the exact matters to be submitted to the jury, and that it is bad practice, if not reversible error, to copy the pleadings and leave it to the jury to determine just what points are to be considered by them. Canfield v. Chicago, R.I. P.R. Co.,
In view of the fact that this case is to be reversed, we suggest that, on the resubmission of the case, the above rule be observed.
Another rule of this court which the district court failed to observe is that nondisputed questions should not be submitted to the jury, and that by doing so the court commits 2. TRIAL: error. Thompson v. Thompson,
We have reviewed the other assignments of error, and find nothing on which a reversal could be based. For the errors heretofore pointed out, this case is reversed. — Reversed.
FAVILLE, C.J., and EVANS and ALBERT, JJ., concur.